List Chad Kovac's book catalog: titles, series, genres, formats, and Kindle price, each with its book door address.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_books"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields (titles, series, genres, formats, Kindle price, book door address), which is real added value, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, catalog size, or whether results are cached/static.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single densely packed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields following. The trailing list is long but each item adds concrete information about the response, so nothing is wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: that it returns the entire catalog and which fields appear. It omits ordering, volume, and any indication of how the 'book door address' is formatted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field enumeration in the description describes output rather than input, which is harmless but not parameter-relevant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Chad Kovac's book catalog') and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows it returns the full catalog rather than a single book. It does not explicitly name get_book or search_catalog as the alternatives, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the zero-parameter schema and the word 'List' suggest it retrieves the whole catalog, which contrasts with a single-book fetch or a search. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any mention of prerequisites or limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.